Replies to post #1050 on Got Parlay?

[rainbow1111]

Lehman proposed settlement in UK - article below - I don't think this affects us. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Alert
LBIE Update
Claim Resolution Agreement, Segregated Assets, U.K. High Court Rulings
December 17, 2009
As previously described in our Alert of Oct. 6, 2009, “LBIE Administrators Announce Contractual Alternative to Proposed Scheme of Arrangement,” the Joint Administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) have proposed a Claim Resolution Agreement (the “CRA”) to facilitate the return of segregated client assets to LBIE’s creditors and establish a mechanism for terminating and closing out certain financial contracts entered into before Sept. 15, 2008.
Parties Subject to the Proposed CRA
The proposed CRA applies to two classes of LBIE creditors:
• TA Signatories. LBIE clients with ownership claims to assets recorded on LBIE’s books and records, and the relevant sub-custodian or depot, as held in a segregated manner, separate from LBIE’s assets, as of Sept. 15, 2008 (“Trust Assets”).
• NTA Signatories. LBIE clients who do not have ownership claims to Trust Assets but who are party to “Financial Contracts” entered into with LBIE before Sept. 15, 2008. “Financial Contracts” include any bilateral or multilateral contract entered into with LBIE before Sept. 15, 2008 (whether written or not), relating to one or more transactions or positions of a financial nature, including contracts for the delivery and/or custody of assets. Contracts that are purely administrative or service contracts are not Financial Contracts.
LBIE delivered CRA offering materials to parties eligible to participate in the CRA process in late November 2009. Those parties wishing to be signatories to the CRA must elect do so by 5:00 p.m. (London time) on Dec. 29, 2009 (the “Election Deadline”). The CRA will become effective if 90% (in value) of those eligible to become TA Signatories sign the CRA by the Election Deadline. The CRA will lapse if the 90% threshold is not met.
Trust Assets The U.K. High Court in London has ruled that LBIE clients have until March 19, 2010 to file their claims to Trust Assets with the Administrators. If a TA Signatory fails to submit its Trust Asset claim by the Bar Date, LBIE will determine the TA Signatory’s entitlement to the Trust Assets based on information available to LBIE when it makes its determination.
LBIE intends to return Trust Assets on a stock-line-by-stock-line basis (i.e., a pro rata distribution for each stock item). If a shortfall occurs, the TA Signatory will have an unsecured claim against LBIE for the deficiency.
Under the CRA, each TA Signatory releases the other TA Signatories from all claims to Trust Assets distributed to it in accordance with the CRA. The CRA does not bind non-signatories and offers no protection to TA Signatories from claims non-signatories may pursue.
Financial Contracts The CRA establishes a mechanism for the termination and close out of all Financial Contracts between NTA Signatories and LBIE. Financial Contracts that have been closed out will be valued based on the close-out amounts, determined in the manner set out in the contracts. Open financial contracts will be automatically closed out on the last day of business of the month in which the NTA Signatory enters into the CRA. The CRA provides different methodologies to be used in determining the value of close-out amounts under these Financial Contracts.
A copy of the CRA can be accessed through the Administrators’ web site.1
Segregated Assets Not Sufficient to Satisfy Trust Asset Claims The Administrators have reported identification of approximately $2.1 billion of Trust Asset claims, but only $1 billion of assets held in segregated accounts to satisfy those claims. On May 1, 2009, the Administrators applied to the High Court for guidance in relation to the treatment of client money received before the administration of LBIE began.
On Dec. 15, 2009, the High Court decided that the pre-administration client money pool consists of accounts used by LBIE in order to segregate client money. The basis for a client’s right to share in the client money pool is based on the amount which was actually segregated for the client. The court determined that the pool of client assets that was segregated before the administration can be distributed to clients. Clients whose Trust Assets were not segregated, however, cannot share in the pool of Trust Assets controlled by the Administrators. Their shortfall claims will be treated with other unsecured creditors.
The client money pool does not form part of the general assets of an insolvent firm in administration or liquidation. LBIE may not set off debts owed by clients to LBIE against clients’ distributions from the client money pool in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.
LBIE is not required, under applicable law or regulation, to make adjustments in the following circumstances:
• For LBIE clients for whom no or insufficient money was segregated at the time of administration.
• For movements between the time of last segregation (being the morning of Sept. 12, 2008, based on figures at close of business on Sept. 11, 2008) and the time of administration.
• To rectify any shortfall including, the shortfall arising by reason of the insolvency of LBIE’s deposit holder Lehman Brothers Bankhaus AG (with which LBIE had deposited client money).
A right to appeal this judgment was granted to certain respondents, which include three of LBIE’s affiliates (collectively the “Respondents”) at the time the judgment was made. If the Respondents decide to appeal, they will need to so by Jan. 15, 2010.
1 http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/issues/lehman_client_assets_update_circular_241109.html
Copyright © 2009 Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. All Rights Reserved. 2
If you have any questions concerning this Alert, please contact:
Lawrence V. Gelber
+1 212.756.2460
[e-mail]
Craig Stein
+1 212.756.2390
[e-mail]
Christopher Hilditch
[phone]
[e-mail]
Ron Feldman
[phone]
[e-mail]
Adam L. Hirsch
+1 212.756.2226
[e-mail]
Stephanie Kim
+1 212.756.2007
[e-mail]
New York
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022 +1 212.756.2000
+1 212.593.5955 fax
Washington, DC
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
1152 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20005
+1 202.729.7470
+1 202.730.4520 fax
London
Schulte Roth & Zabel International LLP
Heathcoat House
20 Savile Row, London W1S 3PR
[phone]
[phone] fax
www.srz.com
“U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice: Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding U.S. federal tax penalties.”
This information has been prepared by Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (“SRZ”) for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and is presented without any representation or warranty as to its accuracy, completeness or timeliness. Transmission or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship with SRZ. Electronic mail or other communications with SRZ cannot be guaranteed to be confidential and will not (without SRZ agreement) create an attorney-client relationship with SRZ. Parties seeking advice should consult with legal counsel familiar with their particular circumstances. The contents of these materials may constitute attorney advertising under the regulations of various jurisdictions.
Copyright

http://www.srz.com/files/News/bf6273b0-6082-4fc4-a577-094e8ed494b7/Presentation/NewsAttachment/1183d9b9-5d9d-45eb-ba98-09a049f3dd42/121709_LBIE%20Update_Claim_Resolution_Agreement.pdf

And a more recent article that may have already been posted.

http://www.risk.net/risk-magazine/news/1590054/lbie-unsecured-creditor-scheme-unveiled-june

[John Gyver]

I think that it will be two separate events.... different country, different laws, different legal teams. It sounds like the easier of the two approaches for sure. I am all for it personally, since I own CT's! ;)

Other thoughts... Will the US Government get involved in any way in the Lehman's case? Will matters be kept hush and attempted to get swept under the rug? Corruption is the greatest wild card here. WMI has some STRONG legal legs to stand on that help Equity out, due to known fraud. Lehman's on the other hand does not, at least at this time. The CEO appears to have mishandled things while in power which makes it easier to sweep under a rug. I think it is a very different case. I will say that the Capital Trusts are by far the safest stocks in the Lehman's family at this point and time. I am pretty sure they will get some sort of payout eventually.

John Gyver